Turns out Muller was invited by Congressional Republicans to put the nail in the Climate Change Coffin a few months ago. What a mistake on their part. You see how it works? One video doth not the truth make...I'll bet the (energy lobby bought) Republicans were positive THIS was the guy to use against Al Gore...never bothering to actually ask him what he would say when he testified.

He supported IPCC Climate Change data, to the chagrin of the House Republicans who had invited him after seeing the video you just posted. Muller supports the IPCC: He just doesn't like number fudging.

Guess what he told Congress? Climate change is happening.

Q: You testified that the scientists maintaining the three climate temperature sets—maintained by NASA, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.K. Met Office—have done "excellent" work. So how did you feel when the e-mails from the University of East Anglia emerged?

R.M.: I felt like a woman who's just learned her husband was cheating on her. It doesn't mean he's a bad husband in all ways, but that trust is lost. ... The e-mails didn't relate at all to the temperature work. … It was all the [paleotemperature] proxy data. [But] that disillusioned me.

Q:What does your initial examination of 2% of world temperature stations find in terms of world climate?

R.M.: Some [readings] are going down—but more are going up. The average is going up.

Originally Posted by Cullion

Watch the video. How much do you trust the IPCC's reports now?

I don't trust the reports because they are ongoing and unfinished. I'll accept them as the best science available until I see credible material in another direction...which remains to happen.

Please read Muller's full work on the subject. You quoted and linked his video out of context believing him to support the skeptics, when in fact he is a Climate Change supporter who was bashing CRU for the errors they made (in judgement).

The article itself was using the letter as rheotorical device to demonstrate consensus. It's pretty obvious.

Nope. You now get to either a) learn to read or b) remove the political lenses from your glasses.

No

Wrong, and pretty much perfectly ignorant too. You don't understand science or the philosophy of science at all. People have moved on since Popper too. Well, no need for a conversation then! "Not only is it not right, it's not even wrong!"

'I can measure the evidence in favour of a hypothesis by counting how many people agree with it'..? Nope.

You consistently swap out the notion of studies showing various results and replace it with "people." It hasn't worked the last three times you tried it; why try it a fourth time?

Ah, you're stooping to ad hominem already. I win.

An ad hominem attack is one in which someone's character is used to attack their position. I'm just pointing out that you're a crank, based on my observations. Not every insult is an ad hominem. Or, shorter, I win. You lose. Again. This keeps happening to you in matters of science, btw.

Both of which are insufficient to proceed to the alarmist AGW hypothesis because you cannot build a predictive model for future climate without examining the complex feedbacks of the earth's biosphere. Remember how badly out Tyndall's 19th century predictions were ?

"Alarmist"==well poisoning .(I win again.) Anyway you asked for examples of how GW hypotheses can be falsified. I provided two. Demonstrate how the studies do not actually involve falsification or acknowledge that the falsification meme is a false one. If you want a few dozen more, we can do that too. You're essentially hiding behind a generic problem with scientific practice: no one experiment or study is definitive, and all are carried out by human beings. Unless you're ready to throw out all scientific results, you have no leg to stand on.

If you made shorter replies, you wouldn't get so behind in the thread and you'd see that I'd already done that.

It's funny that you think I'm sitting here, frantically clicking refresh. I went to the gym (pull-ups, dips, dumbbell snatches, some foam roller exercises for my pelvic tilt problem), went to get lunch, and then came back. At any rate, your critique seems to be that there's an economic interest in clearing the CRU. There are economic interests in all science—some experiments and studies are funded by industry, some by grants (and renewals are often dependent on results) and of course scientists want tenure, prestige, citations, etc. But you don't actually have anything real other than canned denier memes. I especially enjoy how you wandered into W. Rabbit's little trap. It's not like he's all that bright or anything!

Turns out Muller was invited by Congressional Republicans to put the nail in the Climate Change Coffin a few months ago. What a mistake on their part. You see how it works? One video doth not the truth make...I'll bet the (energy lobby bought) Republicans were positive THIS was the guy to use against Al Gore...never bothering to actually ask him what he would say when he testified.

He supported IPCC Climate Change data, to the chagrin of the House Republicans who had invited him after seeing the video you just posted. Muller supports the IPCC: He just doesn't like number fudging.

Guess what he told Congress? Climate change is happening.

I don't trust the reports because they are ongoing and unfinished. I'll accept them as the best science available until I see credible material in another direction...which remains to happen.

Please read Muller's full work on the subject. You quoted and linked his video out of context believing him to support the skeptics, when in fact he is a Climate Change supporter who was bashing CRU for the errors they made (in judgement).

The video quite clearly says that he believes in anthropogenic warming, I can read. The point is he knows bad science when he sees it and he's explaining clearly what was dishonest about the CRU's work.

No, the Berkeley temperature project's study isn't complete yet. As you'd see if you read their publications and saw they only have a preliminary report so far.

Nope. You now get to either a) learn to read or b) remove the political lenses from your glasses.

NO U.

Wrong, and pretty much perfectly ignorant too. You don't understand science or the philosophy of science at all. People have moved on since Popper too. Well, no need for a conversation then! "Not only is it not right, it's not even wrong!"

No U!

You aren't engaging in science without falsifiable hypotheses.

You consistently swap out the notion of studies showing various results and replace it with "people." It hasn't worked the last three times you tried it; why try it a fourth time?

Because you keep trying to validate a scientific position by taking a headcount, and that will meet the same refutation every time.

Rabbit's 'little trap' wasn't what he thought it was 'LOL DID YOU KNOW THAT PROF MULLER BELIEVES IN GLOBAL WARMING!!!' (um.. yes it says that in the video I just posted to show you an example of the evidence of scientific dishonesty by the CRU right after you claimed they were exonerated).

In short: I just showed him a scientist who isn't even an AGW skeptic as announced in the video itself supporting the accusation of scientific dishonesty he didn't believe. His reply?

'OH YEAH? WELL HE ISN'T EVEN AN AGW SKEPTIC!!'.

Ho ho ho. What a brilliant trap indeed. Give me break.

And then you claimed to have presented falsifiability criteria for the AGW hypothesis.. when both of those papers could be refuted and the AGW hypothesis still stand, or the papers stand and the AGW hypothesis still be refuted.

Try again. Perhaps in your next section about my political bias, you could explain why I, as the foaming right-winger, is the one arguing against switch to regressive taxation.

The video quite clearly says that he believes in anthropogenic warming, I can read. The point is he knows bad science when he sees it and he's explaining clearly what was dishonest about the CRU's work.

So, to sum up:

1. I point out that your long quote of Bill Gray details unnamed meteorologists he interacts with and what he says their beliefs are. I recommended comparing this to a peer-reviewed analysis of recent literature on climate change. (Note: my source is superior and checkable, your citation of Gray is second-hand and hearsay—but you say nothing in it is unsourced.)

2. You said I probably hadn't heard of CRU, somehow implying that CRU has something to do with Gray's unsourced claims about meteorologists he's chatted with.

3. To humor you, we started talking about CRU, which you seemingly consider definitive proof of widespread GW chicanery.

4. As evidence of such, you cherry-pick a YouTube video and ignore the content of that video that runs counter to your both your original thesis (GW chicanery!) and your secondary thesis (IPCC reports can't be trusted!). You then somehow suggest that W. Rabbit is being foolish by pointing out with your "As you'd see " line that the Berkeley study is not yet complete. Except of course that Rabbit already explained that he knew the study to be incomplete.

And then you claimed to have presented falsifiability criteria for the AGW hypothesis.. when both of those papers could be refuted and the AGW hypothesis still stand, or the papers stand and the AGW hypothesis still be refuted.

I'm going to frame this and keep it forever. You don't know how falsifiability actually works in real "normal science." No wonder you're confused by so-called "head counts." This was a crosspost, and my last one. You're to be filed under R for Retard forever.

1. I point out that your long quote of Bill Gray details unnamed meteorologists he interacts with and what he says their beliefs are. I recommended comparing this to a peer-reviewed analysis of recent literature on climate change. (Note: my source is superior and checkable, your citation of Gray is second-hand and hearsay—but you say nothing in it is unsourced.)

It's Gray's own testimony, of course it's sourced.

2. You said I probably hadn't heard of CRU, somehow implying that CRU has something to do with Gray's unsourced claims about meteorologists he's chatted with.

You certainly seemed to be unaware of scientific fraud in the field, yes.

3. To humor you, we started talking about CRU, which you seemingly consider definitive proof of widespread GW chicanery.

Amongst other incidents, yes it is.

4. As evidence of such, you cherry-pick a YouTube video and ignore the content of that video that runs counter to your both your original thesis (GW chicanery!) and your secondary thesis (IPCC reports can't be trusted!). You then somehow suggest that W. Rabbit is being foolish by pointing out with your "As you'd see " line that the Berkeley study is not yet complete. Except of course that Rabbit already explained that he knew the study to be incomplete.

Umm.. no, that's not what happened at all. The video simply supports the claim of dishonest practice by climate researchers, which is why it was cited. And that's exactly what it does.

Yeah, we're done here. *unsubscribe*

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. It's not like you had anything intelligent to add.

Originally Posted by Rivington

I'm going to frame this and keep it forever. You don't know how falsifiability actually works in real "normal science." No wonder you're confused by so-called "head counts." This was a crosspost, and my last one. You're to be filed under R for Retard forever.

Yup, you ought to read it from time to time until you understand it.
Presenting two papers which could be falsified without falsifying AGW, or stand themselves whilst AGW was falsified means that you haven't presented falsification criteria for AGW.

I feel your self-righteous rage, and it's.. pathetic.

p.s. you realise that when you get this angry about something most of the general public in your own country disagrees with you on, that makes you the crank, right? lol